Radeon AI PRO R9700 vs Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs with Radeon AI PRO R9700, including specs and performance data.

Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs
2020
28 Watt
8.45

AI PRO R9700 outperforms Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs by a whopping 742% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking52418
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency23.0018.08
ArchitectureGen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022)RDNA 4.0 (2025)
GPU code nameTiger Lake XeNavi 48
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date15 August 2020 (5 years ago)23 July 2025 (recently)

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores964096
Core clock speed400 MHz1660 MHz
Boost clock speed1350 MHz2920 MHz
Number of transistorsno data53,900 million
Manufacturing process technology10 nm4 nm
Power consumption (TDP)28 Watt300 Watt
Texture fill rateno data747.5
Floating-point processing powerno data47.84 TFLOPS
ROPsno data128
TMUsno data256
Tensor Coresno data128
Ray Tracing Coresno data64

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Interfaceno dataPCIe 5.0 x16
Lengthno data267 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 16-pin

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeno dataGDDR6
Maximum RAM amountno data32 GB
Memory bus widthno data256 Bit
Memory clock speedno data2518 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data644.6 GB/s
Shared memory+-
Resizable BAR-+

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display Connectorsno data1x HDMI 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1a
HDMI-+

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Quick Sync+no data

API and SDK compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12_112 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Modelno data6.8
OpenGLno data4.6
OpenCLno data2.2
Vulkan-1.3
DLSS-+

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD27
−715%
220−230
+715%
1440p15
−700%
120−130
+700%
4K12
−733%
100−110
+733%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 45−50
−678%
350−400
+678%
Cyberpunk 2077 19
−742%
160−170
+742%
God of War 21
−710%
170−180
+710%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 41
−632%
300−310
+632%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
−678%
350−400
+678%
Cyberpunk 2077 16
−713%
130−140
+713%
Far Cry 5 26
−708%
210−220
+708%
Fortnite 30
−733%
250−260
+733%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
−689%
300−310
+689%
Forza Horizon 5 35
−729%
290−300
+729%
God of War 18
−733%
150−160
+733%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
−739%
260−270
+739%
Valorant 124
−706%
1000−1050
+706%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 35
−729%
290−300
+729%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
−678%
350−400
+678%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 96
−733%
800−850
+733%
Cyberpunk 2077 13
−669%
100−105
+669%
Dota 2 51
−684%
400−450
+684%
Far Cry 5 25
−740%
210−220
+740%
Fortnite 21
−710%
170−180
+710%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
−689%
300−310
+689%
Forza Horizon 5 31
−739%
260−270
+739%
God of War 15
−700%
120−130
+700%
Grand Theft Auto V 17
−724%
140−150
+724%
Metro Exodus 15
−700%
120−130
+700%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
−739%
260−270
+739%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30
−733%
250−260
+733%
Valorant 112
−704%
900−950
+704%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 30
−733%
250−260
+733%
Cyberpunk 2077 11
−718%
90−95
+718%
Dota 2 47
−645%
350−400
+645%
Far Cry 5 23
−726%
190−200
+726%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
−689%
300−310
+689%
God of War 10
−700%
80−85
+700%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
−739%
260−270
+739%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14
−686%
110−120
+686%
Valorant 23
−726%
190−200
+726%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 15
−700%
120−130
+700%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 16−18
−713%
130−140
+713%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 65−70
−733%
550−600
+733%
Grand Theft Auto V 7
−686%
55−60
+686%
Metro Exodus 9−10
−733%
75−80
+733%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
−678%
350−400
+678%
Valorant 95−100
−733%
800−850
+733%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 20−22
−700%
160−170
+700%
Cyberpunk 2077 7
−686%
55−60
+686%
Far Cry 5 16
−713%
130−140
+713%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
−700%
160−170
+700%
God of War 9−10
−733%
75−80
+733%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
−718%
90−95
+718%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 18−20
−733%
150−160
+733%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 2−3
−700%
16−18
+700%
Grand Theft Auto V 8
−713%
65−70
+713%
Metro Exodus 4−5
−650%
30−33
+650%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12
−733%
100−105
+733%
Valorant 40−45
−695%
350−400
+695%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 10−11
−700%
80−85
+700%
Counter-Strike 2 2−3
−700%
16−18
+700%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−700%
16−18
+700%
Dota 2 20
−700%
160−170
+700%
Far Cry 5 8−9
−713%
65−70
+713%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
−686%
110−120
+686%
God of War 6−7
−733%
50−55
+733%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
−713%
65−70
+713%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 8−9
−713%
65−70
+713%

This is how Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs and AI PRO R9700 compete in popular games:

  • AI PRO R9700 is 715% faster in 1080p
  • AI PRO R9700 is 700% faster in 1440p
  • AI PRO R9700 is 733% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 8.45 71.18
Recency 15 August 2020 23 July 2025
Chip lithography 10 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 28 Watt 300 Watt

Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs has 971.4% lower power consumption.

AI PRO R9700, on the other hand, has a 742.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, and a 150% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon AI PRO R9700 is our recommended choice as it beats the Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs in performance tests.

Be aware that Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is a notebook graphics card while Radeon AI PRO R9700 is a workstation one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


Intel Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs
Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs
AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700
Radeon AI PRO R9700

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.5 1092 votes

Rate Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.6 9 votes

Rate Radeon AI PRO R9700 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs or Radeon AI PRO R9700, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.